jtoday

Doesn't the NRA actually support 'infringement on bearing arms'? They think felons and the mental unstable should not have guns. I don't remember the Constitution making that exception. Am I incorrect about this?

liemonger

The prefatory clause “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” merely announces a purpose. HELLER V. D.C.

It does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.

The militia consisted of all males capable of acting together for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable citizen militias, thereby enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The Antifederalists therefore sought to preserve the citizens’ militia by denying Congress the power to abridge the right of individuals to keep and bear arms.

This interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights adopted in state constitutions immediately preceding and following the Second Amendment.

liemonger

The prefatory clause “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” merely announces a purpose. HELLER V. D.C.

It does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.

The militia consisted of all males capable of acting together for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable citizen militias, thereby enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The Antifederalists therefore sought to preserve the citizens’ militia by denying Congress the power to abridge the right of individuals to keep and bear arms.

This interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights adopted in state constitutions immediately preceding and following the Second Amendment.

DefeatSBB5

In 2011, the FBI chart notes that there were 323 instances of death-by-rifle, while 496 people were killed by BLUNT OBJECTS. Okay. Hawkin's assertion seems true enough if you're willing to overlook the sensationalist spin that all of the deaths caused by hammers and clubs, when blunt objects could include tire irons, golf clubs, bricks, flower pots... you know, anything that is both "blunt" and an "object." But of course, Hawkins blithely ignores the other 8,260 firearm-related homicides in 2011 attributed to shotguns, handguns, and other unidentified guns.

liemonger

The prefatory clause “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” merely announces a purpose. HELLER V. D.C.

It does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.

The militia consisted of all males capable of acting together for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable citizen militias, thereby enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The Antifederalists therefore sought to preserve the citizens’ militia by denying Congress the power to abridge the right of individuals to keep and bear arms.

This interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights adopted in state constitutions immediately preceding and following the Second Amendment.

liemonger

The prefatory clause “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” merely announces a purpose. HELLER V. D.C.

It does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.

The militia consisted of all males capable of acting together for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable citizen militias, thereby enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The Antifederalists therefore sought to preserve the citizens’ militia by denying Congress the power to abridge the right of individuals to keep and bear arms.

This interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights adopted in state constitutions immediately preceding and following the Second Amendment.

DefeatSBB5

"The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms."

Y don't know what the FREAK YOU'RE talking about, cretin!

The "operative clause" cannot be separated from the preceding introductory phrase (it's not a clause, since it has no subject-verb construction), either grammatically, logically, or causally, unless you step into the NRA through-the-lookingglass world in which truisms are inferred totally out of context, even outside their plascement within the syntax of a larger sentence.

It was a dumb, illiterate decision.

You and the Republican-stacked SCOTUS are simply wrong, on so many levels.

liemonger

It does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.

The militia consisted of all males capable of acting together for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable citizen militias, thereby enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The Antifederalists therefore sought to preserve the citizens’ militia by denying Congress the power to abridge the right of individuals to keep and bear arms.

This interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights adopted in state constitutions immediately preceding and following the Second Amendment.

DefeatSBB5

"The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms."

The "operative clause" cannot be separated from the preceding introductory phrase (it's not a clause, since it has no subject-verb construction), either grammatically, logically, or causally, unless you step into the NRA through-the-lookingglass world in which truisms are inferred totally out of context, even outside their plascement within the syntax of a larger sentence.

It was a dumb, illiterate decision.

You and the Republican-stacked SCOTUS are simply wrong, on so many levels.

liemonger

The prefatory clause “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” merely announces a purpose. HELLER V. D.C.

It does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.

The militia consisted of all males capable of acting together for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable citizen militias, thereby enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The Antifederalists therefore sought to preserve the citizens’ militia by denying Congress the power to abridge the right of individuals to keep and bear arms.

This interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights adopted in state constitutions immediately preceding and following the Second Amendment.

liemonger

The prefatory clause “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” merely announces a purpose. HELLER V. D.C.

It does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.

The militia consisted of all males capable of acting together for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable citizen militias, thereby enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The Antifederalists therefore sought to preserve the citizens’ militia by denying Congress the power to abridge the right of individuals to keep and bear arms.

This interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights adopted in state constitutions immediately preceding and following the Second Amendment.

liemonger

Bet he doesn't answer and if he does, please post the conversation on YOUTUBE or something.

We'll title it "When Retards Collide."

Please.

LOL.

Can't wait for this. It'll be a classic. Two tards that can't wipe their own.

"The founding fathers would be HORRIFIED that there are people, lawmakers even, in this country who actually believe that the 2nd Amendment bestows on individual citizens the RIGHT to keep and bear assault weapons with high capacity magazines. "

liemonger

Bet he doesn't answer and if he does, please post the conversation on YOUTUBE or something.

We'll title it "When Retards Collide."

Please.

LOL.

Can't wait for this. It'll be a classic. Two tards that can't wipe their own.

"The founding fathers would be HORRIFIED that there are people, lawmakers even, in this country who actually believe that the 2nd Amendment bestows on individual citizens the RIGHT to keep and bear assault weapons with high capacity magazines. "

DefeatSBB5

liemonger

"The founding fathers would be HORRIFIED that there are people, lawmakers even, in this country who actually believe that the 2nd Amendment bestows on individual citizens the RIGHT to keep and bear assault weapons with high capacity magazines. "